The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Calculation of Molecular Lipophilicity: State-of-the-Art and Comparison of LogP Methods on more than 96,000 Compounds
Abstract
We first review the state-of-the-art in development of log P prediction approaches falling in two major categories: substructure-based and property-based methods. Then, we compare the predictive power of representative methods for one public (N = 266) and two in house datasets from Nycomed (N = 882) and Pfizer (N = 95809). A total of 30 and 18 methods were tested for public and industrial datasets, respectively. Accuracy of models declined with the number of nonhydrogen atoms. The Arithmetic Average Model (AAM), which predicts the same value (the arithmetic mean) for all compounds, was used as a baseline model for comparison. Methods with Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) greater than RMSE produced by the AAM were considered as unacceptable. The majority of analyzed methods produced reasonable results for the public dataset but only seven methods were successful on the both in house datasets. We proposed a simple equation based on the number of carbon atoms, NC, and the number of hetero atoms, NHET: log P = 1.46(+/-0.02) + 0.11(+/-0.001) NC-0.11(+/-0.001) NHET. This equation outperformed a large number of programs benchmarked in this study. Factors influencing the accuracy of log P predictions were elucidated and discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., & Feeney, P. J. (2001) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(00)00129-0 · Cited by 18,139
Dewar, M. J. S., Zoebisch, E. G., Healy, E. F., & Stewart, J. J. P. (1985) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00299a024 · Cited by 13,074
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., & Feeney, P. J. (1997) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(96)00423-1 · Cited by 11,385
Klamt, A., & Schüürmann, G. (1993) · J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 · doi:10.1039/p29930000799 · Cited by 9,445
Partition coefficients and their uses
Leo, A., Hansch, C., & Elkins, D. (1971) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr60274a001 · Cited by 4,540
Handbook of Molecular Descriptors
Todeschini, R., & Consonni, V. (2000) · Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1002/9783527613106 · Cited by 4,107
Kamlet, M. J., Abboud, J. L. M., Abraham, M. H., & Taft, R. W. (1983) · The Journal of Organic Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jo00165a018 · Cited by 3,428
Volumen und Hydratationswärme der Ionen
Born, M. (1920) · Zeitschrift für Physik · doi:10.1007/bf01881023 · Cited by 2,360
Abraham, M. H. (1993) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/cs9932200073 · Cited by 1,968
(1956) · Journal of the Franklin Institute · doi:10.1016/0016-0032(56)91284-4 · Cited by 1,949
Cited by
Daina, A., Michielin, O., & Zoete, V. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep42717 · Cited by 18,367
An in silico skin absorption model for fragrance materials
Shen, J., Kromidas, L., Schultz, T., & Bhatia, S. (2014) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2014.09.015 · Cited by 1,495
Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research
An ad hoc committee of the National Cancer Research Institute, Workman, P., Aboagye, E. O., Balkwill, F., Balmain, A., Bruder, G., Chaplin, D. J., Double, J. A., Everitt, J., Farningham, D. A. H., et al. (2010) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605642 · Cited by 1,442
Current Contributions of Organofluorine Compounds to the Agrochemical Industry
Ogawa, Y., Tokunaga, E., Kobayashi, O., Hirai, K., & Shibata, N. (2020) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101467 · Cited by 1,253
The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery
Hopkins, A. L., Keserü, G. M., Leeson, P. D., Rees, D. C., & Reynolds, C. H. (2014) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd4163 · Cited by 1,181
Metadata
- Authors
- Mannhold, R., Poda, G. I., Ostermann, C., & Tetko, I. V.
- Venue
- Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 861-893
- ISSN
- 0022-3549 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090996511
- Cited by
- 654
- References
- 115
- FWCI
- 30.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Calculation of Molecular Lipophilicity: State-of-the-Art and Comparison of LogP Methods on more than 96,000 Compounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jps.21494
- The paper
- Mannhold, R., Poda, G. I., Ostermann, C., & Tetko, I. V. (2009). Calculation of Molecular Lipophilicity: State-of-the-Art and Comparison of LogP Methods on more than 96,000 Compounds. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.21494
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
